Our bankruptcy practice is devoted primarily to representing defendants in preference and fraudulent conveyance actions brought pursuant to Sections 547 and 548 of the Bankruptcy Code. We also routinely... Read More

We are committed to knowing preference and fraudulent conveyance defense litigation inside out. This means reviewing and analyzing hundreds of preference and fraudulent conveyance judicial... Read More

We focus on defending preference and fraudulent conveyance claims. Our focus works and we can prove it:
We represented a nationally known brand, a sportswear manufacturer, against a $900,000.00...Read More

Mr. Jones has practiced bankruptcy law for over two decades. His primary focus is representing corporate defendants in preference and fraudulent conveyance litigation. Mr. Jones has a national client base and has also represented corporate clients based in Europe and the Far East.....Read More

Category: Featured Case News

N

S

CN

CB

C

R

V

NL

W

A

Dismissed For No Payment

Learn more about our network of counsels.
Learn more about Jones & Associates.
Here are the latest case news.
Here are the clawback news.
Firm’s representation is past cases.
Subscribe and receive our latest newsletter.
Watch our latest videos.
See all our references.
Learn more about Jones & Associates.
Learn more about Jones & Associates.

Dismissed For No Payment

October 26, 2017, Delaware – The defendant, our client, in this case, is a software and service provider. The debtor was an independent oil and gas company engaged in the acquisition, exploration, development, and production of onshore oil and natural gas in North America. Our client provided software maintenance services to the debtor under the annual service contract. The debtors made a post-petition payment of $31,908.80 to the defendant to renew the annual service contract. The Plaintiff initiated a preference action against our client to recover an amount of $31,908.80 as alleged preferences. We submitted our position statement to the Plaintiff, arguing that the alleged transfers were protected from avoidance because the service contract was assumed and approved by the court and was thus exempt from the ambit of the trustee’s avoidance powers under §549 of the Bankruptcy Code. Additionally, the transfer was not avoidable as the court authorized the parties’ post-petition transaction. We also claimed that the alleged transfer cannot be avoided because the transfer constituted a necessary expense to preserve the debtor’s estate and the Defendant had the right to receive it which is equal to an administrative claim, which the defendant is entitled to receive under §503 of the Bankruptcy Code. Based on our arguments, the trustee dismissed the case for no payment.

N

S

CN

CB

C

R

V

NL

W

A

Dismissed For No Payment

Learn more about our network of counsels.
Learn more about Jones & Associates.
Here are the latest case news.
Here are the clawback news.
Firm’s representation is past cases.
Subscribe and receive our latest newsletter.
Watch our latest videos.
See all our references.
Learn more about Jones & Associates.
Learn more about Jones & Associates.

Dismissed For No Payment

September 27, 2017, Delaware – Plaintiff filed a suit to recover alleged preference transfers in the amount of $65,000. Our client supplied and delivered coffee products to the debtor. In defense of our client, we argued that the preference transfers fell within the historical period transactions and is thus protected from avoidance based on the Ordinary Course of Business and Subsequent New Value defenses. Plaintiff agreed to dismiss the case for no payment along with a waiver of pending claims.

N

S

CN

CB

C

R

V

NL

W

A

Dismissed For No Payment

Learn more about our network of counsels.
Learn more about Jones & Associates.
Here are the latest case news.
Here are the clawback news.
Firm’s representation is past cases.
Subscribe and receive our latest newsletter.
Watch our latest videos.
See all our references.
Learn more about Jones & Associates.
Learn more about Jones & Associates.

Dismissed For No Payment

September 14, 2017, Arizona – Plaintiff filed a suit to recover alleged single post-petition transfer for $20,800. We were successfully able to show that the suit was made in error as our client never received transfers from the debtor. Instead, the flow of funds was the other way around, and it was a defendant who paid the debtor for services rendered to the debtor. The Plaintiff readily dismissed the case without payment upon presentation of the case.

N

S

CN

CB

C

R

V

NL

W

A

Dismissed For No Payment

Learn more about our network of counsels.
Learn more about Jones & Associates.
Here are the latest case news.
Here are the clawback news.
Firm’s representation is past cases.
Subscribe and receive our latest newsletter.
Watch our latest videos.
See all our references.
Learn more about Jones & Associates.
Learn more about Jones & Associates.

Dismissed For No Payment

September 22, 2017, Delaware – The defendant, our client, in this case, was engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling homecare products such as toothpaste, soaps, shampoos, etc. The Plaintiff initiated a preference action against our client to recover an amount of $50,327 as alleged preferences. We submitted our position statement to the Plaintiff, arguing that the alleged transfers were protected from avoidance under an ordinary course of business defense and subsequent new value defense. We presented the facts and showed that there was significant consistency between the ranges of the payment made during the historical and the preference period. Based on our analysis, we successfully established the debtor typically paid within 21.76 days during the base period and in 20 days during the preference period. So, a difference of less than two days between the base period and the preference period payment averages fell well within what many courts have found as ordinary and immune from a trustee’s avoidance powers. Based on our strong arguments in the Position Statement, the plaintiff dismissed the case for no payment.

N

S

CN

CB

C

R

V

NL

W

A

Dismissed For No Payment

Learn more about our network of counsels.
Learn more about Jones & Associates.
Here are the latest case news.
Here are the clawback news.
Firm’s representation is past cases.
Subscribe and receive our latest newsletter.
Watch our latest videos.
See all our references.
Learn more about Jones & Associates.
Learn more about Jones & Associates.

Dismissed For No Payment

July 27, 2017, Delaware – The Plaintiff brought a preference lawsuit against our client, a supplier of steel pipes for oil and gas drilling, to avoid and recover an amount totaling $580,974.20 as alleged preferential, fraudulent, and post-petition transfers. Based on our Position statement, we showed that the alleged transfers were exempted from preference as they were made under an ordinary course of business and contemporaneous exchange defense. We also established that the debtor received reasonably equivalent values in exchange for the transfers at issue and that all the alleged transfers were made before the petition date. There were no post-petition transfers. We further showed that a portion of transfers were pre-payments and they did not amount to an antecedent debt. Based on our strong arguments, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the case.

N

S

CN

CB

C

R

V

NL

W

A

Dismissed For No Payment

Learn more about our network of counsels.
Learn more about Jones & Associates.
Here are the latest case news.
Here are the clawback news.
Firm’s representation is past cases.
Subscribe and receive our latest newsletter.
Watch our latest videos.
See all our references.
Learn more about Jones & Associates.
Learn more about Jones & Associates.

Dismissed For No Payment

Delaware, March 7, 2016 – Jones & Associates successfully defended its client, a US air transit services company. Debtor Global Aviation Holdings Inc., through its subsidiaries, was a provider of customized, non-scheduled passenger and cargo air transport services worldwide. The Trustee for the Debtor, Alfred T. Giuliano, brought a lawsuit against our client, the Defendant, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, to recover a five figure amount, covering operation cost reductions and overpayment of taxes allegedly made by one of the Debtors, World Airways to the Defendant. The firm successfully established to the Plaintiff’s counsel that the disputed payments were made to the UK Company and not the Defendant, which is a US corporation. We argued that the Defendant was not a creditor or a transferee of the funds, and therefore, the Debtor had no recourse against the Defendant for the avoidance of the alleged transfers. The Trustee dismissed the case for no payment.

N

S

CN

CB

C

R

V

NL

W

A

Dismissed For No Payment

Learn more about our network of counsels.
Learn more about Jones & Associates.
Here are the latest case news.
Here are the clawback news.
Firm’s representation is past cases.
Subscribe and receive our latest newsletter.
Watch our latest videos.
See all our references.
Learn more about Jones & Associates.
Learn more about Jones & Associates.

Dismissed For No Payment

New York, February 1, 2016 – Jones & Associates successfully defended its client, (the Defendant), a marketer and distributor of Video Games, in a clawback action. The lawsuit was initiated by the Debtor plaintiff THQ Inc. against the Defendant in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The Trustee sought to avoid and recover as preference payments that the Debtor paid to the Defendant during the 90 days before filing of the bankruptcy petition. The Trustee agreed to voluntarily dismiss the complaint. In a position statement prepared by Jones & Associates, Jones & Associates argued that the alleged transfers were within the ordinary course and that the Defendant merely acted as a conduit with respect to the transfer of payments.

N

S

CN

CB

C

R

V

NL

W

A

Dismissed For No Payment

Learn more about our network of counsels.
Learn more about Jones & Associates.
Here are the latest case news.
Here are the clawback news.
Firm’s representation is past cases.
Subscribe and receive our latest newsletter.
Watch our latest videos.
See all our references.
Learn more about Jones & Associates.
Learn more about Jones & Associates.

Dismissed For No Payment

Delaware, January 20, 2016 – Jones & Associates successfully defended its clients, (the defendants), the companies engaged in the selling of surface finishing products, in a preference clawback action. The lawsuit was initiated by Furniture Brand International Wind Down, Inc. Liquidating Trust, by and through Alan D. Halperin, as the Liquidating Trustee of the bankruptcy Debtor FBI Wind Down, Inc. (formerly known as the Furniture Brands International, Inc.) against the Defendants in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The Trustee agreed to voluntarily dismiss the complaint. The adversary proceeding against the defendant was eventually closed on January 20, 2016.

N

S

CN

CB

C

R

V

NL

W

A

Dismissed for No Payment

Learn more about our network of counsels.
Learn more about Jones & Associates.
Here are the latest case news.
Here are the clawback news.
Firm’s representation is past cases.
Subscribe and receive our latest newsletter.
Watch our latest videos.
See all our references.
Learn more about Jones & Associates.
Learn more about Jones & Associates.

Dismissed for No Payment

New Jersey, January 19, 2016 – Jones & Associates successfully defended its client Mr. Richard Caruthers “Rich Little”, the celebrity impressionist, in a preference clawback action. The lawsuit was initiated by Alfred T. Giuliano, the liquidation trustee of the bankruptcy Debtor RIH Acquisitions NJ, LLC against the artist’s corporation, Rich Little Productions, Inc. in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey (Camden). The Position Statement prepared by the law firm stated in detail the arguments and case law in support of the available defenses of contemporaneous exchange for a new value under Sec. 547(c) (1) and the ordinary course of business under Sec.547(c)(2)(A).